Chinese ATGM discussion

AssassinsMace said:

Yeah and they're not going to investigate because the M1 was destroyed. An investigation doesn't help it at all because no one can reverse a destroyed M1 with excuses.

Click to expand...

Even without a supposed investigation we can already make some good answers to the situation. First of is that the M1 in question is a M1A1 without the DU layers which I have repeatedly posted evidence for.
And secondly a destroyed M1 does not automatically propels the HJ-8 to prominence. Especially if there is virtually 0 evidence of it being used against the said tank other than it being fired down a similar looking road, an act that can be done earlier or afterwards.
The fact that an investigation may or may not be done does not disprove this assertions by a single iota.

Viktor Jav said:

Even without a supposed investigation we can already make some good answers to the situation. First of is that the M1 in question is a M1A1 without the DU layers which I have repeatedly posted evidence for.
And secondly a destroyed M1 does not automatically propels the HJ-8 to prominence. Especially if there is virtually 0 evidence of it being used against the said tank other than it being fired down a similar looking road, an act that can be done earlier or afterwards.
The fact that an investigation may or may not be done does not disprove this assertions by a single iota.

Click to expand...

Looks like an HJ-8. YouTube video shows similar looking terrain.




Does not look like a Milan



HJ-8 with Peshmerga

Viktor Jav said:

And secondly a destroyed M1 does not automatically propels the HJ-8 to prominence. Especially if there is virtually 0 evidence of it being used against the said tank other than it being fired down a similar looking road, an act that can be done earlier or afterwards.

Click to expand...

That is the level of reaching that goes beyond critical analysis and starts entering justification for pre-formed opinion territory.

This was a fairly desperate active combat situation, a defensive one in open terrain at that.

That means the camera people would not have had time or opportunity to set up beforehand and get the perfect positioning to capture everything in Hollywood blockbuster style.

Only an idiot would leave cover to try and shoot a video in that situation; as the Iraqi soldiers they were fighting would not have had time to check if you were holding a video camera or weapon if you popped your head in their crosshairs; nor I suspect, would they have cared much about putting a round through your head even if they saw you were holding a camera in that scenario.

The idea that the Peshmerga would waste an antitank missile to stage a propaganda video when they were being hard pressed defending their territory is also stretching credulity. Especially when said weapon was an old Chinese weapon supplied by a 3rd or 4th party, meaning they Peshmergas would not have care one bit about the reputation of said weapon.

AssassinsMace said:

Looks like an HJ-8. YouTube video shows similar looking terrain.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does not look like a Milan

View attachment 49234

HJ-8 with Peshmerga

View attachment 49235 View attachment 49236

Click to expand...

Considering how most of the ME looks pretty much the same, ie a near barren stretch of dirt. Every single road share similarities. The video consist of an amalgamation of edited parts taken in both Syria and Iraq, in fact several of those clips are contradictory against each other. Some shows a field completely devoid of trees and then cuts back to the tank, others shows a completely different tank that is engaged.
What the video merely shows is that the Pershmergas does indeed use HJ-8, but not a M1A1 actually being knocked out by one.

plawolf said:

That is the level of reaching that goes beyond critical analysis and starts entering justification for pre-formed opinion territory.

This was a fairly desperate active combat situation, a defensive one in open terrain at that.

That means the camera people would not have had time or opportunity to set up beforehand and get the perfect positioning to capture everything in Hollywood blockbuster style.

Only an idiot would leave cover to try and shoot a video in that situation; as the Iraqi soldiers they were fighting would not have had time to check if you were holding a video camera or weapon if you popped your head in their crosshairs; nor I suspect, would they have cared much about putting a round through your head even if they saw you were holding a camera in that scenario.

The idea that the Peshmerga would waste an antitank missile to stage a propaganda video when they were being hard pressed defending their territory is also stretching credulity. Especially when said weapon was an old Chinese weapon supplied by a 3rd or 4th party, meaning they Peshmergas would not have care one bit about the reputation of said weapon.

Click to expand...

And yet some how one can find remarkably clear videos of ATGMs actually hitting a vehicle.
Like this
Or this


And this Which conclusively proofs that HJ-8s are being used against a multitude of vehicles. Yet for the so called M1 engagment we have to rely on nothing more than supposed after engagement shots.

That is the reason for my contention, the Syrians and the Kurds have proven that they can make some very impressive combat footage. So why can't they do the same with the M1 engagement, particularly if they are engaging the Iraqis on a frequent basis.

This video while not a totally uncut version, does goes to show how well rebels can go to document their attacks. Pretty much as you would put it : "Hollywood blockbuster style".

Viktor Jav said:

And yet some how one can find remarkably clear videos of ATGMs actually hitting a vehicle.
Like this

Or this

And this

Which conclusively proofs that HJ-8s are being used against a multitude of vehicles. Yet for the so called M1 engagment we have to rely on nothing more than supposed after engagement shots.

That is the reason for my contention, the Syrians and the Kurds have proven that they can make some very impressive combat footage. So why can't they do the same with the M1 engagement, particularly if they are engaging the Iraqis on a frequent basis.

Click to expand...

Please note what I said:

“This was a fairly desperate active combat situation, a defensive one in open terrain at that.”

In all the high quality videos I have seen, the ATGM team are in an offensive scenario, where they are engaging enemy vehicles that are stationary, or too far away to offer the ATGM team any serious direct threat.

In addition, the ATGM teams are engaging from good cover and concealment.

That gives them all the time they need to set up theirs video equipment in optimal viewing position, and the ATGM team also has the leisurely time to co-ordinate their firing with the camera team to make sure they capture everything.

In the M1 scenario, the cameraman is on the road the M1 (and presumably supporting Iraqi infantry) are advancing down.

To get a good view for the camera would also place the cameramen pretty much in the crosshairs of the tank crew and/or supporting infantry. When your life is literally on the line, people tend not to care too much about cinematic quality.

Even if he could get into a good viewing position ans had the balls to risk it, the ATGM team were certaining not going to hang around waiting for the cameraman to get there while staring down the barrel of that 120mm knowing it could blow them to bits at any second.

It’s the same thing when you look at GoPro footage from US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You get beautifully shot footage when the troops are sitting outside enemy weapons range watch a tank or air power go to town on an enemy position. But when the bullets are zipping past their heads, you get footage shaky enough to make a Bourne film cameraman jealous.

plawolf said:

Please note what I said:

“This was a fairly desperate active combat situation, a defensive one in open terrain at that.”

In all the high quality videos I have seen, the ATGM team are in an offensive scenario, where they are engaging enemy vehicles that are stationary, or too far away to offer the ATGM team any serious direct threat.

In addition, the ATGM teams are engaging from good cover and concealment.

That gives them all the time they need to set up theirs video equipment in optimal viewing position, and the ATGM team also has the leisurely time to co-ordinate their firing with the camera team to make sure they capture everything.

In the M1 scenario, the cameraman is on the road the M1 (and presumably supporting Iraqi infantry) are advancing down.

To get a good view for the camera would also place the cameramen pretty much in the crosshairs of the tank crew and/or supporting infantry. When your life is literally on the line, people tend not to care too much about cinematic quality.

Even if he could get into a good viewing position ans had the balls to risk it, the ATGM team were certaining not going to hang around waiting for the cameraman to get there while staring down the barrel of that 120mm knowing it could blow them to bits at any second.

It’s the same thing when you look at GoPro footage from US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You get beautifully shot footage when the troops are sitting outside enemy weapons range watch a tank or air power go to town on an enemy position. But when the bullets are zipping past their heads, you get footage shaky enough to make a Bourne film cameraman jealous.

Click to expand...

And the Syrian combat zone is no less intense than the ones the Persmerga face in Iraq, in fact one might even be right to suggest that the Iraqi side is relatively tame compared to the other side of the border, with the Iraqi forces more or less rendered docile by US oversight and relative lack of confusion and competition foreign nations.
And is not a defensive war much more easier to wage and to set up positions ? In comparison to supposedly offensive scenario ? That the Iraqi tank had to drive its way to the Pershmerga's position completely invalidates the claim of lack of preparation. The tensions leading up to the Iraqi Kurd conflict did not happen in a single night, with even the most dim witted of persons fully cognizant of what the end results will be.
There is no reason to suggest that the Pershmergas were situated in any less advantageous position as we never seen their actual firing position. In fact judging by some of the shots, they very much have the high ground in that engagement. Nor is there any other suggestion that there were any Iraqi infantry alongside the tank.
ATGM's like the HJ-8 are by their nature a defensive weapon given the time needed to set up and sheer weight, to suggest that they are easier to use and to be portrayed in documentaries in an offensive action is errenous. In fact take such remarkable videos in a supposedly offensive action is far more harder to do then what the Pershmergas did.

Hi there, I 'm new here.

Can someone please translate this?
Thanks in advance.

红箭10属于多用途导弹，不仅可以对装甲车辆实施精确打击，还能对低空飞行目标和防御工事构成杀伤力。从央视视频透露的新型，红箭-10导弹连受到上级下达的发现敌人超低空直升机目标以后，红箭10发射车可以迅速更换弹种，对敌武装直升机进行打击。这说明红箭10配备有能够打击低空飞行目标的专用防空型导弹，将战斗部更换为轰爆破片杀伤战斗部，能够比破甲战斗部更高效的毁伤空中目标。

Builder said:

Hi there, I 'm new here.

Can someone please translate this?
Thanks in advance.

红箭10属于多用途导弹，不仅可以对装甲车辆实施精确打击，还能对低空飞行目标和防御工事构成杀伤力。从央视视频透露的新型，红箭-10导弹连受到上级下达的发现敌人超低空直升机目标以后，红箭10发射车可以迅速更换弹种，对敌武装直升机进行打击。这说明红箭10配备有能够打击低空飞行目标的专用防空型导弹，将战斗部更换为轰爆破片杀伤战斗部，能够比破甲战斗部更高效的毁伤空中目标。

Click to expand...

AFT-10 is a multipurpose system, capable not only of destroying enemy vehicles but also low-flying aircraft and fortifications. According to state footage, AFT-10 operators can switch missile types when attacking aircraft, using an air-burst fragmentation warhead rather than conventional HE or HEAT.